Readers' comments

Well opening up Indian markets to Foreign Lawyers would be very helpful not for the Indian Established lawyers (Laiers), but would certainly helpful to the innocent public whose fate is hanging up tied up to the hands of the Indian Lawyers who keep on dragging up the case Year on Year by taking up sessions or by employing other unfair practices to run their lively hood,

Opening up of will certainly help Indian Clients the most, along with Young Batch of Laywers who are poorly paid by the Established Lawyrs. TENTION IS ONLY FOR THE ESTABLISHED FIRMS.

& COURT SHOULD CONSIDER THE AFFTER EFFETS BY HELPING THE COMMON MAN AND NOT THE ESTABLISHED INDIAN LAWYERS.

For me, what is very interesting about this article is that seems to be written in a strong Indian accent. For instance, the simile about children waiting for Disneyland to open. That just doesn't read British to me. Am I wrong? I'm used to hearing regional accents in readers' comments, but I've also noticed this Indian accent in a few articles about India recently. I would like to know if the correspondent is Indian. I enjoy hearing what sounds like the nuances of another culture coming through the writing. It makes for very lively reading.

Additionally, Mr. Luthra's views on the entry of foreign lawyers in India is strangely reminiscent of the erstwhile "Bombay Club's" protectionist views on the liberalization of the Indian economy. It is really ironic that Indian law firm owners like the Luthras and the Shroffs, while structuring multi-million dollar foreign investments in India without a whimper, cry and crib about the entry of foreign lawyers in India. Pooh.

This article has only espoused the protectionist stance being taken by some minority (should I say elite?)segments of the Indian legal profession and has failed in living upto journalistic standards. True standards of journalism lie in bringing the complete picture to the platform. A bulk of Indian lawyers are actually in favour of opening the Indian legal profession to entry of foreign law firms in so far as the transactional (read corporate advisory) services are concerned.

Ask any of the product of the top national law schools in the country and one will know that at least half of the students of the latest graduating batch are leaving for the lure of foreign law firms. Sheer legal professionalism, revision of pay scales and expansion of bandwidth of law firms is the call of the day.. which can only be effected by the entry of foreign law firms on Indian shores.

So if Mr. Luthra does not have 6,000 lawyers, the entry of foreign law firms should be a clarion call to either beef up or face the music. That does not mean that the rest of the Indian corporate lawyers should be condemned to the scourge of family managed Indian law firms where they are mere marionettes in hands of a few.

"India's 15,000 corporate lawyers" are in the business of minting money and are using the vast majority of struggling black-coat wallahs (the litigators) as a shield from foreign law firms. Why these litigators - many of them who are paupers - continue to back the fat cat family firms, who expect to pay next to nothing to their young associates, is a mystery.

And where does the East India company come in all of this? Esp. when almost every MNC is already happily operating in the country?

Just one comment: The business is on the basis of reciprocity and when will Europe or for that matter the entire West will open? I have used and dealt with top western law firms and well I better keep quite in terms of value they provide period

In 1976 the Government of India abolished Solicitors. That was the beginning of the end. I agree that there are many Advocates who are quite competant but the combination of a well trained Bombay of Calcutta Solicitor with a proper office and an Oxbridge Barrister is hard to beat. As in everything else India went backwards with this move for political reasons or for pure expediency. So for those who wish to dip their toes in a really inefficient and completely corrupt legal system all I have to say is God for us all and the devil take the hindmost.

"India's 15,000 corporate lawyers worry that they are not ready for international competition"

Lets be clear: (1) most Indian corporate lawyers would not agree with your statement; (2) most Indian corporate lawyers would benefit from international law firms providing a professional alternative to Indian corporate law firms; (3) some Indian corporate lawyers have already started benefitting from the mere prospect of International law firms entering the Indian market, for instance, by the incredible increase in some domestic salaries (largely) on account of recruitment of Indian lawyers for international law firms.

Secondly, the only Indian corporate lawyers who are really worried about international law firms being allowed in are those who either own or manage or have significant interest in family run, or one-person centric firms. Professional non one-person centric firms – for instance Trilegal, or the TTK have already embraced the possibility of international collaboration.

“Outside India, legal services are a business,” says Rajiv Luthra, founder and managing partner of Luthra & Luthra, one of India's biggest law firms. “Here it is a profession—we still have archaic rules.”

It breaks my heart to say this, but from years of working in a top tier Indian law firm before moving to the United Kingdom, all I saw was an organisation geared towards making pots of money for a single extended family.

So, as far as I am concerned, the legal services is no more of a business outside India than it is inside India, except that outside of India, the honey and money may be spread slightly more evenly.

“but I can't compete with a Clifford Chance. I don't have 6,000 lawyers.”

Tough. Neither could Campa Cola or Thumbs up. One folded and the owner of the other was smart enough to make some money. Incidentally, asking a person with a vested interest whether he has a vested interest and him saying “yes I do”, hardly makes for high quality reporting or journalism.

Has the economist bothered talking to young Indian corporate lawyers in India and abroad who don’t have a vested interest in status quo continuing? Why must articles such as this always cite one of the Shroffs, or Rajiv or Bhasin? There are the wrong people to talk to! They own and control firms! Talk to final year students of law schools! Talk to Indian corporate lawyers who have thrown up their hands in despair and moved abroad!

"Litigators, who make up the majority of lawyers in India, are concerned for other reasons. They occupy an important position in Indian society as the guardians of democracy and are associated with independence from the old British Empire. Tampering with that role is seen as a threat to India's sovereignty".

Does anyone ACTUALLY believe that the vast majority of Indian litigators are "guardians of democracy and are associated with independence from the old British Empire" or that tampering would be a threat to "India's sovereignty"? Wow. Gandhis and Nehrus, each one of them! I am not even going to dignify this assertion with a response. Bah!